V.R.KRISHNA IYER, R.S.SARKARIA, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Kale – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
The provided judgment is not overruled according to the document. The order of the High Court and the decision of the Revenue authorities, which had previously rejected the family arrangement on the grounds of registration and other procedural issues, were found to be legally erroneous. The court emphasized that the family arrangement was valid, bona fide, and binding, and that the failure to register did not invalidate it. The judgment specifically set aside the previous orders and restored the effect of the family arrangement, directing the authorities to attested the mutation in accordance with the oral settlement. Therefore, there is no indication within this document that this judgment has been overruled or invalidated by subsequent rulings.
JUDGMENT
FAZL ALI, J. (for himself and on behalf of Krishna Iyer J.):—This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated May 17, 1966 by which the appeal against the 809 decision of a Single Judge of the High Court rejecting the writ petition of the appellants had been dismissed. An application for granting a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court was made by the appellants before the High Court which was also dismissed by order of the High Court dated August 7, 1967.
2. The case had a rather chequered career and the disputes between the parties were sometimes settled and sometimes re-opened. In order, however, to understand the point involved in the present appeal, it may be necessary to enter into the domain of the contending claims of the respective parties put forward before the Revenue Courts from time to time. To begin with the admitted position is that one Lachman the last propositor was the tenant and the tenure holder of the property in dispute which consists of 19.73 acres of land contained in Khatas Nos. 5 and 90 and 19.24 acres of land comprising Khatas Nos. 53 and 204. Lachman died in the year 1948 leaving behind three daugh
SahuMadho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram
T. V. R. Subbu Chettys Family Charities v. M. Gaghava Mudaliar
Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi SinghBhujil
Ram Charan Das v. Girjanandini Devi
Ram Charan Das v. GirjanandiniDevii
Krishna Biharilal v. Gulabchand
S.Shanmugam Pillai v. K.Shnmugam Pillai
[The vast majority of cases, particularly all references to "Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, AIR 1976 SC 807" or equivalents like (1976) 3 SCC 119, (1976) 3 SCR 202. These appear in nearly every snippet (e.g., [NIFIKIR
VS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
1977 0 Supreme(All) 224](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500038564), G. Thyagesa Mudaliar and another VS Jayalakshmi and others - 1977 0 Supreme(Mad) 525, Raja Ram Singh VS Sheo Mangal Singh - 1978 0 Supreme(All) 805, Rajpati VS Deputy Director Of Consolidation - 1979 0 Supreme(All) 750, PARBATI SHANKAR SEAL VS SUBAL CHARAN SEAL - 1979 0 Supreme(Cal) 344, etc., up to T. Y. R. Subbu Chettys Family Charities VS M. Ragnava Mudaliar - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 28).]
Explanation: Overwhelmingly positive treatment as authoritative precedent on family arrangements/settlements. Key phrases include: "relied on" (e.g., Raja Ram Singh VS Sheo Mangal Singh - 1978 0 Supreme(All) 805: "relied on the case of Kale"), "held that" with approval (e.g., RATAN LAL VS HARI SHANKER - 1979 0 Supreme(All) 693: "held that a family arrangement... needs no [registration]"), "laid down" principles (e.g., Rajesh Gupta VS Shri Mahabir Parshad - 1981 0 Supreme(P&H) 90: "reliance on para 10 of the Supreme Court decision in Kale"), "reiterated" (e.g., Commissioner Of Income-tax VS Narain Dass Wadhwa - 1979 0 Supreme(P&H) 177: "this view was again reiterated"), "followed" (e.g., Manju Devi VS Bishan Sarup Gupta - 2005 0 Supreme(P&H) 725: "Similar view has been expressed... in the cases of Kale"), "settled law" (e.g., Ravinder Kaur VS Jagmohan Singh - 2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 826: "conclusively settled by the Apex Court in Kale"), "guiding principles" (e.g., Khushi Ram VS Nawal Singh - 2009 0 Supreme(P&H) 681), citations with approval of paras 9-10, 38, 44 (e.g., AMARJEET LAL SURI VS MOTI SAGAR SURI - 2005 0 Supreme(Del) 314, Chugh Kathuria Engineers (P) Ltd. VS Delhi Development Authority (DDA) - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 926). Courts "lean strongly in favour" per Kale (Subramaniyan VS Vijayarani - 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 76). No negative qualifiers.]
K. K MODI VS K. N. MODI - 2007 0 Supreme(Del) 2282: Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119.
Devinder Kaur VS Surjit Singh - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 84: Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCR 202.
Raivathari Madhupati Singhania VS Madhupati Vijaypat Singhania - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1306: Kale & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 807.
SHARDA RANI CHAWLA VS P. K CHAWLA - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3699: Kale vs Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 807.
Prathipati Samba Siva Rao VS Prathipati Hanumantha Rao - 2019 0 Supreme(AP) 223: Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1976 SC 807.
P. P. Mahatme, Power Of Attorney Lorna Margaret Pinto, Vasco Da Gama VS Asst Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Margao - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1497: Kale and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1976) 3 SCC 119. (High Court "considered and distinguished").
Kela VS Jahangir Singh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2138: Kale and others v. [implied distinction on registration issue].
Explanation: Explicit "distinguished" language indicates non-application to facts (e.g., K. K MODI VS K. N. MODI - 2007 0 Supreme(Del) 2282: "I do not consider that the decision... in Kale v. Dy. can be pressed into service"; Devinder Kaur VS Surjit Singh - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 84: "Kale was not a case where some members... were not even parties"; SHARDA RANI CHAWLA VS P. K CHAWLA - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3699: "law declared in Kale decision is not applicable"; Prathipati Samba Siva Rao VS Prathipati Hanumantha Rao - 2019 0 Supreme(AP) 223: judgment "is only to the effect that..."; P. P. Mahatme, Power Of Attorney Lorna Margaret Pinto, Vasco Da Gama VS Asst Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Margao - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1497: "considered and distinguished"). Not bad law, but limited applicability.]
Brahmanath Singh VS Chandrakali Kuer - 1960 0 Supreme(Pat) 142: Unrelated to Kale; standalone on compromise petition registration under Indian Registration Act.
RAJ MOHAN KRISHNA VS SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 1992 0 Supreme(All) 264: Standalone on tenant attornment/estoppel.
RAJA RAM VS JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, ALLAHABAD - 1992 0 Supreme(All) 277: Standalone on consolidation proceedings reversal.
PARTHA TALUKDAR VS MINA HARDINGE - 1992 0 Supreme(Cal) 381: Standalone on avoidance of conflict/estoppel.
Amteshwar Anand VS Virender Mohan Singh. - 2005 8 Supreme 219: Standalone principle on upholding family arrangements (echoes Kale but not citing it).
KRISHNA PRASAD VS SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD - 2006 0 Supreme(Sikk) 5: Standalone on unregistered exchange deed inadmissibility.
Explanation: No treatment indicators (followed, etc.); mere descriptions or principles without referencing subsequent cases. Appear independent or not analyzed for treatment in list.]
[RAMDEO
VS BENI MADHO
1982 0 Supreme(All) 469](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500039640): Fragment on consolidation holdings, Sheo Harakh death/heir issue. Appears descriptive of facts/orders, no clear treatment signal (e.g., "held by Settlement Officer... he was not survived by any heir"). Ambiguous if standalone or citing precedent; grouped neutral but unclear.
Explanation: Lacks explicit treatment language; reads as procedural history without "relied on," "distinguished," etc. Could be neutral citation.]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.